Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey

Abstract Earthquake hazard in the Marmara Region, Turkey has been investigated using time-independent probabilistic (simple Poissonian) and time-dependent probabilistic (renewal) models. The study culminated in hazard maps of the Marmara Region depicting peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral accelerations (SA)'s at 0.2 and 1 s periods corresponding to 10 and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 yrs. The historical seismicity, the tectonic models and the known slip rates along the faults constitute the main data used in the assignment. Based on recent findings it has been possible to provide a fault segmentation model for the Marmara Sea. For the main Marmara Fault this model essentially identifies fault segments for different structural, tectonic and geometrical features and historical earthquake occurrences. The damage distribution and pattern of the historical earthquakes have been carefully correlated with this fault segmentation model. The inter-event time period between characteristic earthquakes in these segments is consistently estimated by dividing the seismic slip estimated from the earthquake catalog by the GPS-derived slip rate of 22±3 mm/yr. The remaining segments in the eastern and southern Marmara region are also identified using recent geological, geophysical studies and historical earthquakes. The model assumes that seismic energy along the segments is released by characteristic earthquakes. For the probabilistic studies characteristic earthquake based recurrence relationships are used. Assuming normal distribution of inter-arrival times of characteristic earthquakes, the ‘mean recurrence time’, ‘covariance’ and the ‘time since last earthquake’ are developed for each segment. For the renewal model, the conditional probability for each fault segment is calculated from the mean recurrence interval of the characteristic earthquake, the elapsed time since the last major earthquake and the exposure period. The probabilities are conditional since they change as a function of the time elapsed since the last earthquake. For the background earthquake activity, a spatially smoothed seismicity is determined for each cell of a grid composed of cells of size 0.005°×0.005°. The ground motions are determined for soft rock (NEHRP B/C boundary) conditions. Western US-based attenuation relationships are utilized, since they show a good correlation with the attenuation characteristics of ground motion in the Marmara region. The possibility, that an event ruptures several fault segments (i.e. cascading), is also taken into account and investigated by two possible models of cascading. Differences between Poissonian and renewal models, and also the effect of cascading have been discussed with the help of PGA ratio maps.

[1]  Robert R. Youngs,et al.  Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates , 1985 .

[2]  A. Aksu,et al.  Memorial to İhsan Ketin (1914–1995) , 2002 .

[3]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[4]  M. Erdik REPORT ON 1999 KOCAELI AND DÜZCE (TURKEY) EARTHQUAKES , 2001 .

[5]  Paul Lundgren,et al.  Joint Inversion of InSAR, GPS, Teleseismic, and Strong-Motion Data for the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Earthquake Slip: Application to the 1999 İzmit Mainshock , 2002 .

[6]  Bertrand Meyer,et al.  Seismic hazard in the Marmara Sea region following the 17 August 1999 Izmit earthquake , 2000, Nature.

[7]  David M. Boore,et al.  Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake , 1981 .

[8]  Mustafa Aktar,et al.  Space and Time Evolution of Rupture and Faulting during the 1999 İzmit (Turkey) Earthquake , 2002 .

[9]  C. Cornell Engineering seismic risk analysis , 1968 .

[10]  S. Harmsen,et al.  Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard maps , 2002 .

[11]  H. Philip,et al.  The Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey Earthquake of 17 August 1999: Previous Seismicity, Aftershocks, and Seismotectonics , 2002 .

[12]  David D. Jackson,et al.  Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 , 1996 .

[13]  Polat Gülkan,et al.  A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey , 1985 .

[14]  Y. Yagi,et al.  Source rupture process of the Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake of August 17, 1999, obtained by joint inversion of near‐field data and teleseismic data , 2000 .

[15]  N. N. Ambraseys,et al.  The Seismic Activity of the Marmara Sea Region over the Last 2000 Years , 2002 .

[16]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  A Time-Dependent Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Model for California , 2000 .

[17]  M. B. Baturay,et al.  Strong Ground Motions and Site Effects , 2000 .

[18]  A. Barka,et al.  Heightened odds of large earthquakes near istanbul: An interaction-based probability calculation , 2000, Science.

[19]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work , 1997 .

[20]  D. P. Schwartz,et al.  Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones , 1984 .

[21]  Domenico Giardini,et al.  Unified seismic hazard modelling throughout the Mediterranean region , 2000 .

[22]  Kuvvet Atakan,et al.  Seismic Hazard in Istanbul following the 17 August 1999 İzmit and 12 November 1999 Düzce Earthquakes , 2002 .

[23]  S. Crampin,et al.  Neotectonics of the Marmara Sea region of Turkey , 1986, Journal of the Geological Society.

[24]  Mustafa Erdik,et al.  Assessment of earthquake hazard in Turkey and neighboring , 1999 .

[25]  Halûk Sucuoğlu,et al.  Implications for Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2000 .

[26]  Eser Durukal,et al.  Dynamic Response of Two Historical Monuments in Istanbul Deduced from the Recordings of Kocaeli and Düzce Earthquakes , 2003 .

[27]  Lance Manuel,et al.  An empirical attenuation relationship for Northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach , 2004 .

[28]  D. Perkins,et al.  National Seismic-Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996 , 1996 .

[29]  James Jackson,et al.  Seismicity of the Sea of Marmara (Turkey) since 1500 , 2000 .

[30]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  State of the Practice of Seismic Hazard Evaluation , 2000 .

[31]  R. Youngs,et al.  Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data , 1997 .

[32]  Mustafa Aktar,et al.  The seismotectonics of the Marmara region (Turkey): results from a microseismic experiment , 2000 .

[33]  Eser Durukal,et al.  Critical evaluation of strong motion in Kocaeli and Düzce (Turkey) earthquakes , 2002 .

[34]  Mustafa Ergün,et al.  Structural relationship between the Sea of Marmara Basin and the North Anatolian Fault Zone , 1995 .

[35]  J. Bommer,et al.  Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance , 2002 .

[36]  Kenneth W. Campbell,et al.  Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra , 1997 .

[37]  N. N. Ambraseys,et al.  Long‐term seismicity of Istanbul and of the Marmara Sea region , 1991 .

[38]  D. Weichert,et al.  Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes , 1980 .

[39]  A. Barka,et al.  Strike‐slip fault geometry in Turkey and its influence on earthquake activity , 1988 .

[40]  Bertrand Meyer,et al.  The active Main Marmara Fault , 2001 .

[41]  T. Lüdmann,et al.  The Sea of Marmara: a plate boundary sea in an escape tectonic regime , 1995 .